Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the index only contains employers with open jobs, what fields come back, and the required zero-result handling. It doesn't discuss ranking behavior or rate limits, but the critical behavioral constraint is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields before routing and fallback instructions. Slightly long with three sentences of fallback guidance, but each sentence carries actionable instruction rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema, the description only needs to add routing and edge-case behavior — which it does, including zero-hit recovery and the anti-hallucination rule. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both q and limit are fully documented in the schema (length bounds, default 5, max 20). The description only restates that querying is by name or slug, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Worklittle market company index) with scope (by name or slug, ranked typeahead), and implicitly separates itself from search_jobs by framing the result as input to job search rather than job search itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the trigger ('Use when the user names an employer and you need a real slug/id') and the downstream uses (search_jobs company= filters, job alerts, automations). It also gives fallback guidance for zero hits and an explicit prohibition on inventing ids/slugs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.